bombs in Boston ... and now in Texas???

What utter nonsense.If it's domestic it has to be a disturbed individual?If it is not domestic it has to be some foreign country?Sheesh Phat, think!

Well we simply have no idea yet about who did it or why. What you said was "Its either that or a disturbed domestic individual. Im not suggesting anything yet...we shall see. And what would be your response, were you a national leader? Turn the other cheek?"Your post says that who ever did it must be "disturbed" if it was domestic.It could well be "disturbed" and foreign.It could be quite reasonable and logical and domestic.It could be the act of someone seeking justice.

A system, an affront; we just plain don't know.

I'm sure that is what you believe.

What I believe is totally irrelevant. The fact is that right now all we know is that there were at least two explosions, when and where the explosions happened and that there were injuries and deaths.Who and why are still total unknowns and it is silly to classify them as "disturbed" or "illogical" or "unreasonable" until more is known.

Still the same error Phat yet you even quoted.Why does "domestic" influence whether or not the person who committed the acts was disturbed?

No, I can't give you any examples of when I think blowing off children's legs at the finish line of the Boston Marathon might be a logical and correct act but that is irrelevant.I was not the bomber.But the people injured were likely not the target of the acts anyway; it may well be that they were simply incidental to some other target like the city, the state, tax laws, the Federal Government, Obama, Gay Marriage, the FBI ...AbE:But all of that is irrelevant to my point anyway.Phat in particular made a statement that if it was Domestic Terrorism it was some disturbed individual and that is just nonsense.It is very possible, even likely, that whoever planted the bombs, whether foreign or domestic, believes that their actions were completely reasonable, logical, ethical and justified. Whether it was foreign or domestic has nothing to do with how they view their motivation.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Damn good thing no one suggested such a thing than isn't it. BUT... is is also quite true that maiming children is often just collateral damage and the US does just that. Well, I certainly did not think I was being cryptic but my reputation is also totally irrelevant and of no consideration.Edited by jar, : respond to nonsense about reputation.

Actually, I can most certainly imagine a Wyoming Rancher thinking he should be in a state of war against the US because of drone surveillance and the potential of strikes.If we are smart, maybe possibly even wise though, we should look at and understand what motivated them and see if we shouldn't change our behavior.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

So we should not learn and allow our behavior to evolve?

But the bombing did make Obama (and most of the government) look ineffective.

No, a single person cannot legally be in a State of War anymore than your example of someone in Lebanon thinking that they should be in a state of war over drone strikes.But the Wyoming Rancher can have the same fears as the person in Lebanon, after all the US is rapidly expanding the military drone bases in the Us (over 50), the use of drones and even continental based Predator and Reaper bases.

I saw no issues raised in your post.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

He could think that the US Government should be overthrown. He could think (and many do) that he should be at war with the US.

They are legally wrong but that is simply a matter of law. Technically he would be in a State of Rebellion. But we still claim there was a Civil War and a Revolutionary War.